The Tribunal observed that when a foundational jurisdictional issue exists, dismissal on limitation without examining merits is unsustainable. The reassessment and all consequential penalties were accordingly quashed.
Since the investment was examined and accepted in scrutiny proceedings for AY 2015–16, the Revenue could not re-characterize the cost during the sale year. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld full LTCG exemption.
NAV approach using prevailing market value of land, the fair market value exceeded the issue price. The Tribunal ruled that the AO’s reliance on book value was unjustified and deleted the addition.
ITAT Delhi ruled that non-response by suppliers to Section 133(6) notices alone cannot justify treating purchases as bogus. As the assessee furnished bills, bank records, and GST details and sales were accepted, deletion of ₹3.97 crore addition was upheld.
The Tribunal held that once capital gains are correctly taxed in one assessment year, protective addition in another year cannot survive. Deduction under Section 54F was also allowed as conditions of the proviso were not met.
The Tribunal ruled that undated, unsigned loose sheets lacking independent evidence cannot justify additions under Section 153A. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, it deleted additions exceeding ₹2.10 crore for want of corroboration.
The Tribunal held that where disallowance was accepted and taxes paid during revision under Section 263, penalty under Section 270A was not warranted. The appeal was allowed and penalty deleted.
The ITAT Kolkata held that where assessment is completed under Section 143(3), alleged earlier non-compliance with notices stands impliedly condoned. Penalty under Section 271(1)(b) was therefore unsustainable and deleted.
Tribunal held that recurring software expenses such as licence renewals and database support fees are revenue in nature since no capital asset or ownership right was created. Deduction under Section 37(1) was allowed and Revenue’s appeal was dismissed.
ITAT held that approval by the Principal Commissioner was invalid where more than three years had elapsed from the assessment year. Since Section 151(ii) required sanction from PCCIT/CCIT, the reassessment was declared void.
